Open Source Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people organizing, marketing or licensing open source development projects. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
If a project using GPL-3.0-or-later doesn't include a copyright notice, does it violate the license? What would the consequences be?
I'm asking because https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit states:
[...] The GPL requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice.
Should the main LICENSE file in a repository already contain the copyright, or should copyright be handled on a file-to-file basis? (Most project don't do this.)
It depends on why you're releasing under GPL. If you're the sole rightsholder, and so not bound by the GPL, the obligations of GPLv3 s5a don't apply to you, and you can release without any particular text at all. If, however, you're required to release your work under GPLv3 by virtue of it being a derivative of a GPLv3 work, then s5a applies, which in turn invokes s4, which requires that "you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice".
We have previously argued that pseudonyms are acceptable, so this requirement is by no means onerous with regard to privacy, and I can't immediately think of any other reason why one should be reluctant.
The possible consequences of GPL violation are too complex and ramified to go into here, but you should avoid knowingly doing it if you can.
Should the main LICENSE file in a repository already contain the copyright, or should copyright be handled on a file-to-file basis?
There is nothing magical about a LICENSE file, neither in copyright law, nor in most licences. Regarding copyright notices, the rubric of the GPL is clear that
It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file [...] and each file should have at least the “copyright” line and a pointer to where the full notice is found
Just because others (as you note) sometimes play a bit fast and loose with this, that is no reason not to follow best practice!
You can distribute under the GPL v3.0 without a copyright notice. But there is a problem: Just because I see "licensed under GPL v3.0" doesn't mean it is actually licensed. It could have been created by some joker who thinks it's funny to distribute someone else's closed software with a GPL v3.0 notice (it's not funny, because this can create a huge mess).
With the copyright notice, I have at least someone to ask whether it's indeed GPL v3.0 licensed by them. (Very important if you have company lawyers making sure that everything is 100% legal. And they have someone to sue if someone lied about the GPL license).
